Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Festivus..I'll give you a perfect example of what SKAY is trying to say. It was clear to me what Billick's mentality was at the end of the 1st half:

When your team had been struggling to make a 1st down the entire 1st half and you have 2 TOs left and you have the ball, and you are trailing 9-3, a FG or TD can turn the momentum in your favor heading into the locker room.

You at least TRY to get pts on the board, if you fail, no big deal. But wasting an entire possession is a JOKE. And Billick's logic was that Indy had TOs left as well and if we went down and scored Indy would get the ball back w/ another chance to score before halftime. Well, a real coach would have tried to score AND leave Indy little or no time left....THAT'S PLAYING TO WIN.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Save your histrionic monolithic thinking/arguments for someone who cares. I never equated McNair's piss poor execution with Billick's piss poor play calling, although, now that you mention it, the fact that he was calling in PASSING plays in the 2nd half WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPLOITING THE RUN D of Indy DOES, in fact, impact on the execution of the plays, because the plays being called in end up playing into the STRENGTHS, rather than the WEAKNESSES, of the opposing D. But that notwithstanding, McNair is entitled to have a bad day -- Billick's pattern of stupid game planning/play calling spans YEARS.

And that doesn't even get into Billick's piss poor preparation for this game (where was an attempt to get SOMEBODY back there instead Cory Ross to run back kickoffs or punts and maybe give us a shot in the arm as far as better field position goes -- like Clayton, McAlister, etc.

Or the insanity of running out the clock at the end of the first half -- something Billick has done REPEATEDLY -- rather than at least TRY to get some points on the board.

Or the total lack of even ONE SINGLE NEW WRINLKE on offense -- pass by Clayton, flea flicker, etc.

Or the season-long under-utilization of Mike Anderson.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

If you need to rationalize all the legitimate criticisms of Billick as a "meltdown", be my guest. His coaching problems -- MASKED by the quality of the players he has -- speak for themselves. Belichick, on the other hand, has demonstrated an uncanny ability to piece together sub-pro bowl caliber players and get them to win championships. Billick has YET to do that. He won in 2000/2001 because that D was so good, it took care of the defense AND the offense.

He tried to rely on that this year, and he fell short. And I'm tired of it. And so are a lot of other fans. You want to stay in his corner, that's up to you. And if you need to write off those who are clear-headed enough to see what's really going on and speak out against it as "meltdowners", that's also your choice But I guarantee that as long as Billick is here as HC, the team is going to continue to be limited by his eccentric fears that get projected onto the whole offense, and ultimately the whole team.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

"Skay, I don't claim to be a mental giant. I'm not so fancy as you and don't understand the difference between playing to win, and playing not to lose."

Try this: You're Indiana Jones. You can pick up all the ancient loose gold coins on the floor of the temple and go home with a nice find...or you can pull the lever that might give you access to the motherlode treasure of the Incas ten feet away - but that also may be booby-trapped to kill you instantly.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Well said SKAY...I agree w/ all of your pts. There are 2 factions of fans on the Billick topic...always has been.

Keep in mind the playcalling when we got into the redzone. It was run, run, pass. Billick couldn't better than that? It was WAY too predictable. Calling the same pass play on 1st or 2nd down is just smarter and increases the chance for success.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Art, Fan, Skay, if on the goal line pick, Steve McNair had instead hit Demetrius Williams in the corner of the end zone for a touchdown, would you guys all still be blaming the coach for a bad play called?

Festivus

His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Originally Posted by Fanman

Festivus..I'll give you a perfect example of what SKAY is trying to say. It was clear to me what Billick's mentality was at the end of the 1st half:

When your team had been struggling to make a 1st down the entire 1st half and you have 2 TOs left and you have the ball, and you are trailing 9-3, a FG or TD can turn the momentum in your favor heading into the locker room.

You at least TRY to get pts on the board, if you fail, no big deal. But wasting an entire possession is a JOKE. And Billick's logic was that Indy had TOs left as well and if we went down and scored Indy would get the ball back w/ another chance to score before halftime. Well, a real coach would have tried to score AND leave Indy little or no time left....THAT'S PLAYING TO WIN.

What more do you need than that?

FM

Thanks, Fanman. I just didn't have the patience to explain it to Festivus. And that example is cut from the same cloth as that ridiculous Keystone Cops adventure when Billick decided against Cinci that it was "too risky" to just go ahead and kick the field goal that would have put us up by two scores -- something that would have made it statistically IMPOSSIBLE for us to lose, given the time left, assuming we made the field goal. Billick threw up a bunch of red herrings as to why he was playing the "odds", DESPITE THE REALITY THAT THE ODDS WERE SLIM TO NONE OF US HAVING THE FIELD GOAL BLOCKED AND RUN BACK FOR A TOUCHDOWN -- something that has NEVER HAPPENED while Billick has been the coach.

By contrast, giving the ball back to Cinci with Palmer, Johnson, WhosYourMama, and Henry to try for a hail mary that COULD have tied the game WAS an actual possibility. So with Billick, not only do you get his with his warped, "play not to lose" mentality, you ALSO get hit with all of his rationalizations to try to explain his stupid philosophy. And I've had it with that chit. People who play not to lose actually END UP LOSING MORE than people who play to win, especially in post season, where the wheat has already been separated from the chaff. It's a FALSE security, and that's what people here are trying to expose.

And those are just 2 examples; he incorporates his "play not to lose" in virtually every game. I THOUGHT that after firing Fassell, that would change. But what this season showed is that it really hasn't; it won't; it's too much a part of Billick's basic makeup. And Billick's insistence -- along with all the usual rationalizations -- to keep calling plays after "promoting" Rick to OC is another example of his eccentric, control freak mentality, which is intimately linked to his "play not to lose" mentality. (i.e. not to lose control is connected to his "play not to lose" game planning, IMO)

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Originally Posted by festivus

Art, Fan, Skay, if on the goal line pick, Steve McNair had instead hit Demetrius Williams in the corner of the end zone for a touchdown, would you guys all still be blaming the coach for a bad play called?

Again, you're pulling your same old Bait And Switch crap. NO ONE is saying that, but you keep on trying to ram YOUR argument home, without beginning to LISTEN to what anyone else is saying to you. That's why I chose NOT to give you examples of things already given, because with you, it's not a matter of people saying things to you that are beyond your comprehension, it's a matter of you choosing not to listen to what people have already said.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Originally Posted by festivus

Art, Fan, Skay, if on the goal line pick, Steve McNair had instead hit Demetrius Williams in the corner of the end zone for a touchdown, would you guys all still be blaming the coach for a bad play called?

Personally, I'm not blaming anybody, except maybe McNair for aging. I was only trying to give an illustration of the difference between the two kinds of mindsets anyone can have.

Re: REASONS FOR THE LOSS (AKA, the Blame Game)

Thanks Art, now your Indiana Jones metaphor makes sense.

> People who play not to lose actually END UP LOSING MORE than
> people who play to win,
Sure Skay. Now I understand completely. We went 13-4 including the Indianapolis game, and you reach back to a game we lost against Cincinnati on short rest to give me your counter example. So you keenly remember to throw in these extra words:
> especially in post season
Perhaps because you think that I will point out we went 13-3 in the regular season, which isn't exactly a pattern of losing.

In the San Diego game SD could have put the ball away with a key first down very late in the fourth quarter. They had the ball 2d and 5, I believe, with Ladanian Tomlinson in the backfield. The more cautious play would have been to run the ball, but Marty Schottenheimer went to the air instead two times, two incompletions. New England gets the ball back, and the rest is history. Should Schottenheimer have called running plays? I bet the SD fans say so, with the benefit of hindsight. But I'd bet you would say, he did the right thing, because you have to be aggressive.

Would you still be screeching today if we'd won on Saturday? Because I really don't remember you demanding Billick's head on a pole last week.

Festivus

His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.